UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4362
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLINTON CAVER, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-38)
Submitted: March 15, 2004 Decided: April 7, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter H. Paramore, III, LAW OFFICES OF W. H. PARAMORE, III, P.C.,
Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clinton Caver, III, appeals his 190-month sentence,
pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a firearm as a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)
(2000). Caver’s counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two sentencing issues.
This Court reviews a sentencing court’s factual findings for clear
error and its related legal conclusions, including the application
of the Sentencing Guidelines, de novo. United States v. Daughtrey,
874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989).
First, Caver asserts his prior convictions for felony
breaking and entering, and felony larceny after breaking and
entering, are crimes against property, and do not qualify as crimes
of violence and cannot serve as a predicate for sentencing as an
armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000). Caver’s
claim is meritless. Caver’s prior offenses qualified him for
sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 4B1.4(a) (2002); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000); Taylor v.
United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990); United States v. Bowden, 975
F.2d 1080, 1083 (4th Cir. 1992).
Second, Caver asserts the district court should have
directed that his federal sentence for the instant offense run
concurrent to his state sentence for breaking and entering, and
larceny of a residence from which he stole the firearms he pleaded
- 2 -
guilty to possessing in the instant offense. Caver’s claim is
meritless. Caver’s criminal history increased his offense level
for the instant offense, but the offense conduct of his prior state
conviction was not calculated as relevant conduct towards his
instant offense, and accordingly, he cannot prevail on this claim.
USSG § 5G1.3 (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm Caver’s conviction and sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -